Memorandum of USCA as to Martin Kao re 173 Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment, USCA No. 25-2435: Affirmed — USA v. Kao (Dkt. 186)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii · No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEK · Doc. 186 · 2026-02-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                    Plaintiff - Appellee, 
  v. 
MARTIN KAO, 
                    Defendant - Appellee, 
---------------------------------------- 
TIFFANY JENNIFER LAM, 
                    Interested Party - Appellant. 
No. 25-2435 
D.C. No. 
1:21-cr-00061-LEK-1  
MEMORANDUM* 
 
Appeal from the United States District Court  
for the District of Hawaii 
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding 
 
Submitted February 12, 2026** 
Honolulu, Hawaii 
 
Before: BYBEE, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. 
 
 
* 
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 
 
** 
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 
without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 17 2026 
 
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 4 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 186     Filed 02/17/26     Page 1 of 4  PageID.2256

 
 
2  
25-2435 
 
Appellant Tiffany Lam appeals the district court’s denial of her claim to 
third party ownership interest in funds posted as bail to secure the pre-trial release 
of her husband Martin Kao.  She seeks to preclude the Government from applying 
the bail funds to Kao’s restitution debt under 28 U.S.C. § 2044.  We affirm the 
district court’s decision. 
We have jurisdiction to review Lam’s appeal of the district court’s final 
decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.  We review the district court’s interpretation of 
both federal and state law de novo.  Conestoga Serv. Corp. v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc. 
312 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2002); PSM Holding Corp. v. Nat’l Farm Fin. Corp., 
884 F. 3d 812, 820 (9th Cir. 2018). 
Lam’s argument boils down to whether she has a vested ownership interest in 
the bond money based on her oral marital contract in which she and Kao agreed to 
treat all their jointly and individually held assets as part of their marital estate.  There 
is no dispute that 28 U.S.C. § 2044 prohibits the application of bond payments made 
by “third part[ies]” to a defendant’s restitution debt.  The question is whether Lam’s 
purported ownership interest renders her a third party with a separate claim to some 
portion of Kao’s bail money.  The answer requires inquiry into whether Lam in fact 
held any property rights with respect to the bank account from which the funds were 
drawn.  
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 4 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 186     Filed 02/17/26     Page 2 of 4  PageID.2257

 
 
3  
25-2435 
Under Hawaiʻi law, whether a spouse “owns” funds in a bank account is 
governed by ordinary principles of property law. See Traders Travel Int’l, Inc. v. 
Howser, 753 P.2d 244, 246–47 (Haw. 1988).  A “married person may make contracts, 
oral and written . . . with the married person’s spouse . . . in the same manner as if 
the married person were sole.”  Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-22(a).  Thus, in Hawaiʻi 
married couples may contract, even “regarding martial property rights.”  Crofford v. 
Adachi, 506 P.3d 182, 190 (Haw. 2022); see also Epp v. Epp, 905 P.2d 54, 61 (Haw. 
Ct. App. 1995).   
Here, Lam has not established that she has a property right to these funds, as 
Kao was the sole owner of the account from which they were withdrawn.  In Kao’s 
affidavit, he attested to being the owner of the bail funds.  Unlike property rights, 
which run against third parties, contract rights run only against the parties to the 
agreement.  Compare Sylva v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 19 Haw. 681, 683–84. (1909) 
(explaining that a property right is “a right availing against the world at large” 
(citation omitted)), with Thomas v. State, 562 P.2d 425, 427 (Haw. 1977) (“[I]t is 
axiomatic that one not a party to a stipulation may not be bound by it.”).  Thus, the 
oral agreement that Lam asserts she had with Kao was not an agreement giving Lam 
property rights to the account. 
Equitable distribution is the default avenue by which ownership rights may 
vest between spouses in Hawaiʻi.  See, e.g. Gordon v. Gordon, 350 P.3d 1008, 1017–
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 4 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 186     Filed 02/17/26     Page 3 of 4  PageID.2258

 
 
4  
25-2435 
18 (Haw. 2015) (describing Hawaiʻi’s equitable distribution approach); Epp, 902 
P.2d at 62 (describing married spouses’ ability to modify Hawaiʻi’s default approach 
to property division in divorce).  But one spouse has no individual vested right to 
property held by the other spouse unless and until the two are endeavoring to divide 
their shared enterprise, namely, through a divorce proceeding.  United States v. Real 
Prop. Located at 148 Maunalanikai Place in Honolulu, Haw., 2008 WL 3166799, at 
*8 (D. Haw. Aug. 6, 2008).  Under this path to ownership, Lam’s particularized, 
vested interest in Kao’s funds could only follow from a divorce trial in which a court 
has reviewed evidence and allocated property accordingly.  See Malek v. Malek, 768 
P.2d 243, 246 (Haw. Ct. App. 1989).  Thus, Lam has no claim to the bail funds that 
are now in the Government’s possession. 
The district court’s denial of Lam’s objection is AFFIRMED. 
Case: 25-2435, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 4 of 4 
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEK     Document 186     Filed 02/17/26     Page 4 of 4  PageID.2259

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.hid.154417.186.0.pdf

Size

1,439,283 bytes

SHA-256

11c739114b08a367af3214613e1862349579279901486c33cd830957cb1c3943

Our copy

gov.uscourts.hid.154417.186.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)